The Expiration of Exigence: How Postmodern Frameworks Dissolve and What Rhetoric Can Do About It

The Expiration of Exigence: How Postmodern Frameworks Dissolve and What Rhetoric Can Do About It Anastasia Schlechty Published 5 Oct 2020 Abstract Lloyd Bitzer’s 1968 article, “The Rhetorical Situation,” reframed scholarship on communication. Prior to this, rhetorical studies primarily looked to content and style of discourse in order to provide an analysis of meaning and value; however, scholars became frustrated with the limited access that this type of framework afforded. The 1960s marked a dramatic shift in dominant rhetorical thinking from modern thought toward a realm of new ideological approaches, including postmodern thought. Environment became a major focus of postmodern communication studies, claiming that the situation, more than the content itself, determines the message. Rhetorical frameworks continue to rely on a modern or postmodern consciousness, despite the emergence of yet another societal shift into an evolved postmodernism, a reaction to the biases inherent in this relativism. Specifically, the evolution of the postmodern mind into an apathetic consciousness leads to an expiration of exigency as Bitzer defined it 50 years ago. This paper argues that current scholarship lacks a complete awareness of these new assumptions and understandings, specifically relating to cultural apathy. This paper will recount the historical context that leads into this modern framework, illustrate the situation, and argue the potential solutions. Ultimately, this paper reveals that much exigency inhabits a devalued position in the now-evolved postmodern mind, and rhetorical theory must renovate its understanding on discourse accordingly through three steps: acknowledgment, updated definitions, and thoughtful discourse. 1 Introduction It is vital that communication theory adjusts for a shifting societal consciousness; operating within anachronistic frameworks renders such work nearly useless in pragmatic application. Aspects of scholarship appear attached to models like Lloyd Bitzer’s “Rhetorical Situation,” functioning from an outdated understanding of exigency as inherently meaningful. Meanwhile, Western society is inundated with a surplus of exigence so that these occurrences lose their value and Bitzer’s model becomes obsolescent. This paper will argue that a rise in Western societal apathy, an indication of an evolved postmodernism, limits our engagement with contemporary issues, thus blinding us to exigences that arise. I begin by defining key terms as they apply to this paper, and then I move onto the problem that faces current scholarship. The third section discusses the historical shift from Western modernism toward postmodernism in the late-mid twentieth century, and the communication scholarship alterations that became necessary under this cultural evolution. The next section focuses on how Bitzer defined “exigence” as he wrote into this new postmodern theory, and why his definition is no longer viable. Then, I offer some reasoning for the state of cultural apathy, and finally move into examples of such lethargy, revealing the expiration of exigency. OPEN ACCESS 2 Method Reproducible Model In order to lay a common groundwork for the analyses within this paper, I wish to define key Edited by Helen Ruger terms. These definitions are not necessarily essential for the claims I make and should not deter the reader that does not agree, but they allow for a common perspective on which I may build my Curated by analysis. I work from Bitzer’s somewhat discursive definition of rhetoric: Helen Ruger *Corresponding author rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the [email protected] creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action (4). From an augmented postmodern perspective, I acknowledge that rhetoric functions in more material ways than Bitzer defines it. However, for the purposes of this paper, viewing rhetoric as primarily discursive, revealing itself through artifacts such as words and images, simplifies the reading. Bitzer’s definition of exigence, “imperfection marked by urgency,” also serves as the basis for the following discussion (6). Under Bitzer’s reading, “exigence” occurs anytime that something is not perfect and is bound by some time constraint: climate change, for example. “Relativism” can be defined as the lack of framework or structure within the rhetorical search for truth, and an emphasis on situational characteristics. Finally, I use terms such as “truth” and “objective truth” in order to present the majority-held beliefs, notably during the modern period and before, that constituted a general framework. The search for truth is a search for an authoritarian structure that functions beyond oneself. 3 The Problem The current scholarship on rhetorical relativism deserves observation because many of its methods are outdated. When rhetorical scholars study discourse, their evaluative claims are steeped in an objective framework purposing to further a body of scholarship. However, certain rhetorical scholarship lacks understanding that facets of society have lost the contextual framework that rhetorical criticism continues to perpetrate. Scholars such as Anderson, Ehrenhaus, and Garrison represent such textual scholarship that fails to understand or reflect a shift in contemporary consciousness. This category of scholarship cultivates insightful readings within text, but in disregarding the contemporary audience’s consciousness, blindly assumes that the exigency1 it re- sponds to is relevant because of a reliance on past theoretical understandings. However, when the Western world began to deviate from a modernist focus2 on technique within classical structure,3 Lloyd Bitzer responded, offering “The Rhetorical Situation”4 to replace neo-Aristotelian criticism and usher in a postmodern era of rhetoric. In the media studies and philosophy communities, Marshall McLuhan and Martin Heidegger, respectively, influentially illustrated the meaning of the new era for their realms of scholarship. Therefore, rhetorical scholarship should be prepared to make changes once again. Over 50 years later, we still find ourselves in what seems to be an offspring of the postmodern mind; and yet, I argue that we should not assume this mind is unchanged from the time of Bitzer’s writing. I assert that the main alteration that the world appears to understand, leaving current textual rhetorical scholarship behind, is the culture of apathy, a result of rhetorical relativism in situational rhetoric. In order to better understand the rhetorical dilemma, I will provide a historical instance of exigency and its application within the context of current communication scholarship. In his 1972 article, “Rhetorical Exigence,” Arthur Miller employs a useful analogy for the way that current rhetorical scholarship ineffectively interacts with culture through anachronistic frameworks. The account details two competing groups: The Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law League. The Chartists, due to an exigence of starvation, pushed for a charter that would alter the political machinery of England and enhance Britain’s economic reality. Meanwhile, the Anti-Corn Law League worked to repeal high tariffs on foreign grain so that a higher percentage of the British population could afford food. Thus, two reactions to the same perceived exigence. The defining conclusion of this analogy comes from Ebenezer Elliot, the Corn Law Rhymer, who says: “I am for your charter, but I am not for being starved to death first” (Miller 117). This analogy sheds light on the problem within rhetorical scholarship: a charter toward starving peasants is like old frameworks for the modern mind. When rhetorical critics make claims steeped in an outdated framework and an expired awareness of the modern mind, they offer a charter to starving peasants. This is not to say that they are ignorant to the starvation of the masses, but instead that they lack contemporary resources to adapt to the exigence or assume that old frameworks will somehow evolve alongside. 1I.e. a problem. 2An understanding of the world through a hierarchical lens and traditional, institutional values. Notably, modernism assumes a universal audience and rejects subjectivity and relativism. 3Aristotelian and Neo-Aristotelian criticism: methods of judging rhetorical works for specific elements of style, and forgoing evaluations of content. 4Briefly: a paper intended to define the spaces where individuals create rhetorical discourse and to assert the situation- based nature of rhetoric. 2/10 Textual analyses operating from outdated frameworks, such as the ones mentioned above, tend to assume the relevance of their exigency, relying on Bitzer’s notion that rhetoric comes into existence as an answer to a question or a solution to a problem (5) and failing to realize that the starving peasants of our contemporary consciousness perceive such exigency as unhelpful charters. The importance of rhetoric here is that if rhetorical theorists, critics, and scholars intend to offer real contribution for the contemporary mind, they must begin by recognizing that the people are hungry for bread, a step that would recognize the substance of rhetorical complaints before blindly mapping charters, or frameworks, onto them. Naturally, this analogy faces some limitations that I will clarify. First, one may be led to think that because hunger acted as a constraint within Miller’s tale, that the apathy resulting from late postmodernism5 also does not change any situation,

Load more